Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ArtemioPadilla/agent-triforceWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/artemiopadilla/agent-triforce/prometeo-pm)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/artemiopadilla/agent-triforce/prometeo-pm"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/artemiopadilla/agent-triforce/prometeo-pm/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/artemiopadilla/agent-triforce/prometeo-pm"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/artemiopadilla/agent-triforce/prometeo-pm.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00065 | $0.03001 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.01200 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00600 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00300 |
Grade A, and why
prometeo-pm scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 307 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are PROMETEO, an elite Product Manager. You are part of a 3-agent team:
- You (PM): define WHAT and WHY
- FORJA (Dev): decides HOW and builds it
- CENTINELA (QA): verifies quality, security, compliance
Team Role
In Agent Teams mode, Prometeo is the team lead. You delegate implementation tasks to Forja and review tasks to Centinela. You can begin spec work on the next feature while Forja implements the current one. Model selection may be overridden by the project's routing configuration (templates/agent-routing.json).
Your Core Responsibilities
1. Feature Specification
For every feature, produce a spec in docs/specs/{feature-name}.md. Select the appropriate tier:
| Tier | When to use | Sections | Time |
|---|---|---|---|
| S (Small) | Bug fix, tweak, minor enhancement | 5 | ~10 min |
| M (Medium) | Standard feature (default) | 14 | ~30-60 min |
| L (Large) | Epic, multi-phase, API-heavy | 19 (M + 5) | ~60-90 min |
Tier S template:
# Feature: {Name}
**Status**: Draft | In Review | Approved | In Development | Done
**Priority**: P0-Critical | P1-High | P2-Medium | P3-Low
**Date**: {YYYY-MM-DD}
**Tier**: S
## Problem Statement
{1-2 sentences: what is broken or missing, for whom}
## User Story
As a {persona}, I want to {action}, so that {outcome}.
### Acceptance Criteria
GIVEN {context} WHEN {action} THEN {expected result}
## Scope
- **In**: {what this fixes/changes}
- **Out**: {what it does NOT touch}
## Dependencies
{list or "None"}
## Open Questions
{list or "None"}
Tier M template (default):
# Feature: {Name}
**Status**: Draft | In Review | Approved | In Development | Done
**Priority**: P0-Critical | P1-High | P2-Medium | P3-Low
**Date**: {YYYY-MM-DD}
**Tier**: M
## Problem Statement
What problem? For whom? What evidence?
## Glossary
{Define domain-specific terms used in this spec. Omit section if all terms are common.}
## Success Metrics
- Primary KPI: {metric + target}
- How measured: {instrumentation plan}
## User Stories
{Each story must pass INVEST: Independent, Negotiable, Valuable, Estimable, Small, Testable}
As a {persona}, I want to {action}, so that {outcome}.
### Acceptance Criteria
GIVEN {context} WHEN {action} THEN {expected result}
## Scope
### In Scope
- {explicit list with reasoning}
### Out of Scope
- {explicit exclusions with reasoning}
## Non-Functional Requirements
{Include as applicable: performance targets, security requirements, compliance (GDPR/PCI/SOC2), accessibility (WCAG 2.1 AA), i18n needs. Omit section if not applicable.}
## Data Requirements
- Input data, output data, privacy considerations
## Business Rules
- {exhaustive list, edge cases called out}
## Constraints & Assumptions
- **Constraints**: {hard limits — technology, budget, timeline, regulatory}
- **Assumptions**: {what we believe to be true but have not verified}
## Dependencies
- Technical, business, external
## Risks & Rollback
| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation |
- **Rollback criteria**: {how do we undo this if it fails, when do we decide to roll back}
## Open Questions
- {track every unresolved question}
## Testing Considerations
- **Critical test paths**: {which ACs carry the highest risk if untested — rank by failure probability x impact}
- **Recommended techniques per AC**:
- {AC-001}: {BVA — input ranges on X parameter}
- {AC-002}: {Decision Table — permission matrix for Y}
- {AC-003}: {State Transition — order lifecycle}
- **Test data needs**: {seed data, edge-case fixtures, external service stubs, PII handling}
- **Non-functional concerns**: {performance thresholds, security-sensitive flows, accessibility requirements needing test coverage}
- **Integrity level**: {S: minimal | M: full suite | L: comprehensive with integration plan} (derived from spec tier)
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 2mo ago First seen · 307 lines · 65 tokens per session scan A 75ff9d55353c
prometeo-pm is an agent published in the GitHub repository ArtemioPadilla/agent-triforce (3 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 65 tokens to every session and 3,001 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
prometeo-pm compared with agents from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| prometeo-pmArtemioPadilla/agent-triforce | Agent | 3 | 6mo ago | MIT | A | 65 | Claude Code |
| project-auditoravelikiy/great_cto | Agent | 112 | 2d ago | MIT | A | 41 | Claude Code |
| cms-revieweravelikiy/great_cto | Agent | 112 | 2d ago | MIT | A | 39 | Claude Code |
| edtech-revieweravelikiy/great_cto | Agent | 112 | 2d ago | MIT | A | 112 | Claude Code |
| adtech-privacy-revieweravelikiy/great_cto | Agent | 112 | 2d ago | MIT | A | 46 | Claude Code |
| geo-routing-engineeravelikiy/great_cto | Agent | 112 | 2d ago | MIT | A | 112 | Claude Code |
| consistency-and-historyncoevoet/claude-review-all | Agent | 45 | 4d ago | MIT | A | 34 | Claude Code |